ArticleBMC health services research2025
Audit and group feedback in nursing home physician groups: lessons learned from a qualitative study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAudit and group feedback (A&F) is an instrument used to encourage healthcare professionals to improve the quality of care. Clinical practice was audited against a set of criteria and fed back to a group by a facilitator. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of how physician group feedback sessions in nursing homes were conducted and to what extent they resulted in action planning.
methodsFifteen group feedback sessions of the antibiotic A&F program within a nursing home network were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed via the Framework Method for thematic analysis. The coding was performed using the existing Calgary A&F Framework and Cooke's conceptual model of physician behaviors, and open inductive codes were added.
resultsElements of the conceptual model and the Calgary A&F Framework occurred within all group feedback sessions. The relationships within the group and with the facilitators were important elements when moving a group from interpreting the results to formulating action plans. Physician groups responded positively to the audit data, particularly if they were among the best performing. The data were met with doubt by physicians who did not recognize their own practice. When exploring potential reasons for lower guideline adherence, groups often considered data quality or external factors such as the choice of non-adherent treatment by locum staff. The degree of reflection on personal factors as explanations for low adherence and the extent to which groups identified learning and improvement opportunities varied: some groups were able to formulate action plans to address data problems and knowledge gaps, whereas others scheduled a follow-up meeting to develop action plans for treatment or prescribing practice changes.
conclusionsThe facilitator was crucial in supporting the group in interpreting the results, steering the conversation towards sharing change cues, and helping the physician group in developing action plans. The degree of reflection and action planning varied by group. By implementing the lessons learned from this study, group feedback sessions can be refined, supporting participants in action planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.